Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18335)
Facts:
Rodrigo B. Supena, President of BPI Agricultural Development Bank (BAID), filed a verified complaint dated June 16, 1993 charging Judge Rosalio G. de la Rosa with gross ignorance of the law for issuing an Order dated May 25, 1993 that held in abeyance the extrajudicial public auction sale scheduled for May 26, 1993 in Foreclosure Case No. 93-822 arising from a real estate mortgage in favor of BAID against PQL Realty Incorporated (PQL); the Notice of Extrajudicial Sale had been published and the auction was to be conducted in Manila. Respondent justified the Order as necessary to determine whether venue had been improperly laid pursuant to a contractual venue stipulation and to investigate an alleged uncredited payment; the Supreme Court reviewed the administrative complaint against the judge.Issues:
- Did respondent commit gross ignorance of the law by issuing the May 25, 1993 Order holding the extrajudicial foreclosure sale in abeyance?
- Could the ex-parte motion and the cont
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18335)
Facts:
- Parties and filings
- RODRIGO B. SUPENA, President of BPI Agricultural Development Bank (BAID), filed a verified complaint dated June 16, 1993, charging Judge Rosalio G. de la Rosa with gross ignorance of the law.
- The complaint attacked an Order dated May 25, 1993 issued by respondent in Foreclosure Case No. 93-822, entitled BPI Agricultural Development Bank v. PQL Realty Incorporated.
- Underlying extrajudicial foreclosure and sale
- On April 1, 1993, mortgagee BAID initiated extrajudicial foreclosure of a Real Estate Mortgage executed by mortgagor PQL Realty Incorporated (PQL).
- On April 21, 1993, Jesusa P. Maningas, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of Manila, issued a Notice of Extrajudicial Sale scheduling public auction on May 26, 1993 at 10:00 a.m., in front of the City Hall Building, Manila; notice was published May 4, 11 and 19, 1993.
- The property subject of sale was described and covered by TCT No. 112644, located in Felix Huertas Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila.
- Ex parte motion and respondent's Order
- On May 25, 1993, respondent, as Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, issued an Order holding in abeyance the May 26, 1993 auction sale based on an ex parte Motion to Hold Auction Sale in Abeyance filed by PQL.
- BAID received a copy of the Order only on May 31, 1993.
- Complainant's allegations about the Order
- BAID alleged the Order functioned as an indefinite restraining order issued without a proper case filed, without notice and hearing, and without an injunction bond.
- BAID asserted the sole ground in PQL's ex parte Motion — that the parties agreed to hold foreclosure proceedings in Makati — was meritless because venue for extrajudicia...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Primary legal questions presented
- Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law by issuing an ex parte Order holding an extrajudicial foreclosure sale in abeyance.
- Whether venue for an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is governed by Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, or by the general venue provisions of the Rules of Court.
- Ancillary legal questions
- Whether a stipulation in a Loan Agreement fixing venue in Makati operates as an exclusive venue clause or merely a permissive additional forum.
- Whether an ex parte Motion to Hold Auction Sale in Abeyance is a proper remedy to stop an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, or whether the proper remedy is ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)